schedule-iii

Confirm a section has been reviewed

confirm_capture_review

Destructive

Record your user’s confirmation that they have REVIEWED a whole section and it is complete — the entire previous-year comparative column, or the entire disclosure set. A review confirmation is your user’s professional assertion, recorded as authorised by them. Before calling this, show them what you are confirming — the whole comparative, or the whole disclosure set — and get their explicit go-ahead. Never confirm a review that has not happened. Saving figures or text does NOT complete these two sections and never has; only this confirmation does. The confirmation is pinned to the exact set that was reviewed, so ANY later save to that section withdraws it — if a confirmation appears not to stick, the next step is to re-review and confirm again, never to retry. Confirming again after such a change supersedes the earlier confirmation: it is marked withdrawn (it stays on the record) and the response names what was withdrawn. Re-confirming also invalidates any finalise approval you already hold. Only two sections take a review confirmation: the previous-year comparative and the disclosure set. Every other section is answered by saving its rows, or by declare_capture_na. Datavrn notifies the member you name that this was recorded in their name. Generate a fresh version after your last capture change — finalisation checks the version’s frozen capture state, not today’s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`client_id`	Yes	The entity (client) id — from list_clients.
`period_id`	Yes
`reason_code`	Yes
`template_id`	Yes
`capture_kind`	Yes
`on_behalf_of`	No	The email address your user signs in to Datavrn with. This records who authorised the change alongside the connection that made it. REQUIRED on an API-key connection — ask your user for it, do not guess. On an OAuth connection leave it out: the change is recorded as authorised by the member who connected; if you do supply it, it must be that member.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite annotations already marking destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds deep behavioral context: confirmation is pinned to the reviewed set, later saves withdraw it, re-confirmation supersedes and marks the prior as withdrawn, it invalidates finalise approvals, notifies the named member, and requires a fresh version. This goes far beyond the annotations and is critical for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then addresses exclusions, consequences, and prerequisites in a logical order. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance (e.g., the version-generation note, the notification behavior). While it could be trimmed slightly, the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of destructive side effects, the description covers the essential context: prerequisites (show and get go-ahead), exclusions (only two sections), behavioral consequences (withdrawal, supersession, invalidation), and operational requirements (fresh version). It does not describe the return value, but no output schema is present and the description implies what the response names (withdrawn confirmations). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 29%, so the description should compensate, but it focuses on behavior rather than parameter details. It does explain that reason_code enumerates the two valid sections, and that capture_kind likely indicates which capture type, but it doesn't explicitly map parameters to their roles. The schema itself provides descriptions for client_id and on_behalf_of, but note is undocumented in both. The description adds context that helps infer some parameters, but not enough to fully compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Record your user's confirmation that they have REVIEWED a whole section') and clearly identifies the two resources ('previous-year comparative column' and 'entire disclosure set'). It distinguishes itself from saving operations, saying 'Saving figures or text does NOT complete these two sections'. This is precise and removes ambiguity against sibling tools like save_disclosures or save_py_values.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Before calling this, show them what you are confirming... and get their explicit go-ahead') and when-not-to-use ('Never confirm a review that has not happened'). It also explains that every other section uses saving or declare_capture_na, and explicitly warns against retries when confirmation doesn't stick. This fully routes the agent to the correct context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All schedule-iii tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.

Tool Count2/5

At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.

Resources

Need Help?